CHRISTIANIZED MIOMLTSM 
AND THE HIGHER CRinCISM 



BS 

511 

A57 



! I lii: !!! 



:i;i 



'Mill '. . 



M. 



r-f.i,, 



in a, ' ililr 



I' 



'I':!: 



!i;'i!i:n 



• • '^i 



mm 



mriii 



1 



!! 



'I'l 



lili! 



i!l 



ii 'illl'i 



! ■')! I N„>, 



>M 






!.< ' !-'!.!\|.i 



lilMiM'Mi'l 



! I 



!!■ n -s 



,'■' 



ill!} 






l:-i 1. 



iliiiii'i 



l-li 



Ml 






! 






1 1 



III 



lit 



!ii 



. I'l.',: til 



ji'Ml! 



i! 



iiii li 



SIR ROBERT ANDERSON. K.C.B. LL.D. 







Pllfi 



ww< 




Classj6S_5li 
Book .J^SX- 



CopightN" 



COPyRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



ntxh ®Ij0 ^^^^tt Olrtttrtam 

A REPLY TO PROFESSOR HARNACK'S 

*'WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY'^ 



BY 

SIR ROBERT ANDERSON, K. C. B., LL. D. 

Formerly Chief of the 
Criminal Investigation Department^ London 

AUTHOR or 

'THE BIBLE AND MODERN CRITICISM," "THE BUDDHA OF 

CHRISTENDOM," "THE SILENCE OF GOD," "DANIEL 

IN THE CRITICS DEN," ETC., ETC. 



^3^t ,, 



** The same principles which at firit view lead to scepticism, 
pursued to a certain point, bring men back to commen sense." — 
Bish9p Berkeley, 



1903 
THE WINONA PUBLISHING COMPANY 

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS WINONA LAKB, INDIANA 



*t-:i 



THE LieRAilY OF 
CON CARESS, 

KtC -^ I9ttg 



COPYRIGHT, 1903, 

BY 

THE WINONA PUBLISHING CO. 



eDristiani^ed Rationalism 



ebristtdniKed Rattonalistn 

and 
Cbe l)i9Der Criticism 



A EEPLY TO PEOFESSOR HARXACK^S 
^^WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY r 

I. INTRODUCTORY. 

ONE of the most striking features of re- 
ligious thought to-day is the honour paid 
to the Founder of Christianity by those who 
reject His claims to divine homage. With the 
cultured Jew the once execrated Nazarene is 
now held in respect as one of the great Rabbis 
of the past. With the cultured infidel the 
coarse hatred of Voltaire has given place to the 
exquisite admiration of Renan. The change 
is most grateful to the Christian. But it is 
not without its perils. There is a real danger 
lest the gulf should be ignored which lies be- 
tween a generous appreciation of the greatest 
of religious teachers and the spiritual worship 
of our Divine Saviour and Lord. And this 
danger is intensified when the homage comes 

1 



Cbrtstianise^ IRattonaltsm 

from one who claims a place within the camp 
of faith, and when it is clothed in the very 
words of Scripture — words which to Christian 
ears seem to carry with them the acknowl- 
edgment that He is divine. 

These thoughts are suggested by the study 
of Professor Harnack's What is Christianity?* 
In striking contrast with the dreary periods 
of Strauss's New Life of JesuSy these pages 
glow with life and sympathy; and the reader 
is carried along by charms of style and diction, 
which even the ordeal of translation into Eng- 
lish has failed to destroy. And more than this, 
the use of New Testament terminology seems 
to assure us that we are in touch with the 
great facts and truths of Christianity. For 
here we read of ^^the kingdom of God,^^ ^^the 
Messiah,^^ ^^the Son of God,^^ "the God-man,^^ 
"the expiatory death'^ of Him who "was pro- 
claimed as ^the Lord,^ not only because He had 
died for sinners, but because He was the risen 
and the living One,'' the Bearer of "the glad 
message assuring us of eternal life.'' 

This is well fitted to deceive the superficial. 

* What is Christianity? Sixteen lectures delivered in 
the University of Berlin. Translated into English by 
Thos. Bailey Saunders. (Williams & Norgate, London.) 



Cbrfstfani3e& IRationalism 

But the careful reader recognizes that it is but 
the husk from which all that is vital in Chris- 
tian truth has disappeared. To give a new 
reading to an old text, we might say that ^^the 
voice is JacoVs voice, but the hands are the 
hands of Esau/^ For the phraseology repre- 
sents not the divinely accredited realities on 
which the Christianas faith is founded, but 
merely ideas suggested to the minds of the 
disciples by the public facts of their Master^s 
ministry and death. "Eeconciler^^ has become 
a term of reproach. But in a new sense Dr. 
Harnack is a champion reconciler. We knew 
that Christianity — so indestructible is its vital 
force — could survive the pressure of a weight 
of Eationalism; his aim has been to prove that 
Eationalism can adopt the whole apparatus of 
the Christian creed. The corruption of Chris- 
tianity by Eationalism is no new thing; but 
he has shown us that Eationalism pure and 
simple can disguise itself in a Christian dress. 

II. PROF. HARNACK'S SCHEME. 

But though his lectures are apt to deceive 
the many, he himself is chargeable with no 
sinister intention. For his scheme is disclosed 

3 



Cbrfstianiseb IRatfonalfsm 

in his opening words. His purpose is "to re- 
mind mankind^^ "that a man of the name of 
Jesus Christ once stood in their midst/^* To 
the devout Jew and to the intelligent Christian 
the meaning of "Jesus Christ^^ is "Jesus the 
Messiah^^ — a divine title of supreme solemnity 
and honour. But to the world in general it 
has no such significance. It merely desig- 
nates the ^Tiistoric Jesus^^ who lived and died 
nineteen centuries ago; and if reverent 
thoughts or religious emotions are aroused at 
the mention of the name, it is because the 
mind turns back to a remote past, not upward 
to the throne where the Lord of life and glory 
sits on the right hand of God. 

And so here the question, "What is Christi- 
anity?'^ does not find answer in the divine 
revelation of which the Lord Jesus Christ is 
the sum and substance, but resolves itself into 
"the purely historical theme: What is the 
Christian religion ?"t The spiritual Christian 
has learned to distinguish between Christi- 
anity and "the Christian religion,^' but Prof. 
Harnack makes no such distinction. For not 
even "the historic Jesus'' himself will afford 

♦p. 1. tpp. 6, 9. 



Cbri6tianf3e& IRationalfsm 

^Hhe materials^^ for his inquiry; ^Tie must in- 
clude the first generation of His disciples as 
well/^* Nor will even this suffice. For, he 
tells us, ^^Jesus Christ and His disciples were 
situated in their day just as we are situated 
in ours; that is to say, their feelings, their 
thoughts, their judgments, and their efforts 
were bounded by the horizon and the frame- 
work in which their own nation was set, and 
by its condition at the time/^f This being so, 
our ^^materials^^ must not be limited even to 
the life and teaching of ^^Jesus Christ and His 
disciples f^ to ascertain aright what is Christi- 
anity ^Ve must include all the later products 
of its spirit/^l 

But, of course, ^^Jesus Christ^^ and His "mes- 
sage^^ are of principal importance. What, 
then, are "our authorities^^ here ? The answer 
is, in words, "the first three gospels.^^§ ^T[n 
words/^ I say; for let no one suppose that he 
may accept any one of the three as trust- 
worthy. If the Eationalist would leave us even 
a single book of the New Testament, the 
foundations of our faith, however narrowed, 
would at least be secure. But before the wor- 

*p. 10. tp. 13. tP. 10. §P. 19. 

5 



<rbrfstfanf3e^ IRatfonalfsm 

shipper can betake himself to the sanctuary 
he must repair to the professor's classroom to 
learn how much or how little of all on which 
his faith rests has escaped in the general 
wreck. 

III. DR. HARNACK REJECTS THE INCARNATION, 

THE RESURRECTION AND THE 

ATONEMENT. 

His first staggering blow will be the dis- 
covery that "the history of Jesus^ birth^^ is 
worthless. "Two of the gospels do, it is true, 
contain it/' but yet "we may disregard it."* 
The Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Son 
of God, must thus give place to Jesus of 
Nazareth, the Son of Joseph; a man whose 
mind was warped by a petty, provincial en- 
vironment,t whose religious teaching, therefore 
taxes our ingenity to discriminate between the 
element of kernel and of husk,J a man who be- 
lieved in such "absurdities'' as "stories of 
demons," § and whose views on social ques- 
tions were biased by "his eschatological ideas 
and his particular horizon." || 

The next blow to faith will be the discovery 

*p. 30. tp. 12. 1:p. 55. §p. 58. g p. 101. 

6 



Cbrfstfani3e& IRatfonalfBm 

that the resurrection is a mere ^T}elief .'^ Here 
again what has been said about the birth 
applies: the language used is that of Christi- 
anity, but that is all. ^^Whatever may have 
happened at the grave and in the matter of 
the appearances, one thing is certain^^ we are 
told, "This grave was the birthplace of the 
indestructible belief that death is vanquished, 
that there is a life eternal/^* "Whatever may 
have happened ;^^ for, as the author says, "It 
is not our business to defend either the view 
which was taken of the death, or the idea that 
he had risen again/^f "Views'^ and "ideas,^^ 
not facts. The only facts left us are that 
there was once "a man called Jesus Christ,^^ 
and that He died upon a cross. "The convic- 
tion that obtained in the apostolic age that the 
Lord had really appeared after His death on 
the cross may/^ Dr. Harnack tells us, "be 
regarded as a coeflficient.^^J It is not that the 
fact of the appearances was "a coefficient,^^ but 
merely the belief that there were appearances. 
And this distinction is emphasised by the con- 
text. For this statement immediately follows 
a reference to the "coefficient of a mistaken 
expectation of Christ^s near return.^^ 

♦p. 162. tp. 155. tP. 173. 

7 



Cbristiani3e& IRationalism 

"The Christian religion/^ so-called, abounds 
with delusions and frauds, and Dr. Harnack^s 
'^Christianity'^ is no better. "That Jesus* 
death on the cross was one of expiation'^ is 
also an "idea/'* It belongs to a class of ideas 
that "respond to a religious need/'f And, as 
the author adds, "history has decided in its 
favour, and we are beginning to get in touch 
with it/' More than this, "everywhere that 
the just man suffers, an atonement is made 
which puts us to shame and purifies us."J 
"These are the ideas which have been sug- 
gested by Christ's death," and "they have 
taken shape in the firm conviction that by His 
death in suffering He did a definite work ; that 
He did it ^for us/ '^§ 

IV. DR. HARNACK REJECTS THE MIRACLES AND 
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 

Then there are the miracles. A friend of 
mine once averted a disaster by "healing" a 
man upon whom the safety of a party of travel- 
lers depended. Their hale, rough, mountain 
guide was seized with a sudden illness, and 

• p. 156. t p. 157. t p. 159. § p.159. 



8 



CbristfaniseJ) IRationalfsm 

lay down to die. By the use of a strong will, 
and a bottle of hair-wash from his valise, he 
had the man on his feet again in half an hour. 
I once got him to tell the whole story to the 
late Sir Andrew Clark, and I remember well 
the response it evoked, uttered in Sir Andrew's 
staccato style : "I thoroughly believe in a gift 
of healing/' So also does Prof. Harnack; and 
thus he is able to accept what I may call the 
everyday miracles of the ministry. For, he 
tells us, "historical science in the last genera- 
tion has taken a great step in advance by learn- 
ing to pass a more intelligent and benevolent 
judgment on those narratives.''* 

And yet, with strange inconsistency, he 
writes : — 

'Ti is not miracles that matter; the question on 
which everything turns is whether we are helplessly 
yoked to an inexorable necessity, or whether a God 
exists who rules and governs, and whose powder to 
compel Nature we can move by prayer and make 
a part of our experience."t 

Now this entirely explodes the infidel argu- 
ment against miracles. For the seeming force 
of that argument depends on the fallacy that a 
* p. 24. t p. 30. 

9 



Cbristiani3eD TRationaltsm 

miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, 
whereas in fact it is but ^^the introduction of 
a new agent possessing new powers/^ Once we 
acknowledge a God who rules and governs and 
can "^^compel Nature/^* the credibility of divine 
miracles resolves itself into a question of evi- 
dence^ and a refusal on a priori grounds to 
examine the evidence betokens sheer material- 
ism or stupidity. 

Take Joshua^s miracle for example. "That 
the earth in its course stood stilF^ (Dr. Har- 
nack declares) "we shall never again believe/^f 
Some of us never did believe it. Nor does the 
Bible state it. Joshua^s prayer was that the 
sun might "be silent.^^ And the record of 
what follows explains this Hebrew figure of 
speech: "The sun was silent in the half of 
the heaven and hasted not to go down a whole 
day.^^ It is incongruous to say that "the sun 
stood still and hasted not to go down.^^ When 
we say that a man did riot haste to catch a 

* Nature is, of course, but one sphere of God's gov- 
ernment, and, therefore, to speak of God's "compelUng 
Nature" seems incongruous. Upon this whole question 
of miracles I take the liberty of referring to my book, 
The Silence of Ood, especially chapter iii. 

tp. 28. 

10 



Cbristiani3e5 IRationalism 

train^ we imply^ not that he sat down^ but that 
he went to the station slowly. And so here: 
the sun lingered in the [visible] half* of the 
heaven. And if we believe in a God who ha§ 
power over ^^j^ature/^ His retarding the rota- 
tion of the earth does not seem more wonder- 
ful than an engineer's ^^slowmg down'' th^ 
great wheel of a steam engine. 

So much, then, for the miracles. As for the 
rest, Prof. Harnack's purpose being to reduce 
the facts and the phenomena of what he calls 
^^Christianity" to the level of Eationalism, he 
reads the JSTew Testament with a predetermina- 
tion to refuse everything which clashes with his 
own system. I^Tot only, therefore, is the story 
of the birth rejected, but also that wonderful 
narrative which he dismisses as "a curious 
story of a temptation." And the Messiahship, 
the eternal Sonship, and the atonement are, 

* The word is so rendered with rare exceptions in all 
its one hundred and seventeen occurrences. The ren- 
dering "in the midst" suggests the grotesque idea that 
at noonday Joshua gave a drill-sergeant command to 
the sun to halt, and it stood still ! Common sens€ 
might tell us that the need would not arise till the 
sun was sinking, and it became clear that the approach 
of night would enable the enemy to escape. 



11 



Cbrfstiani3e& IRatfonallsm 

like the resurrection, relegated to the category 
of ^^ideas/^ 

The Gospel of John, of course, goes over- 
board. It ^^does not emanate from the apostle 
John,'^ and it ^^cannot be taken as an historical 
authority in the ordinary sense of the word/^* 
The genuineness of the fourth gospel is too well 
established to be dismissed in this jaunty way 
by a wave of the hand. If in any other 
sphere than that of religious controversy a 
writer were to treat in such a contemptuous 
fashion the convictions and conclusions of 
scholars and thinkers as competent and trust- 
worthy as himself, he would be told — well, he 
would be told what Prof. Harnack needs to be 
told here. But I will leave it to someone else 
to say, for I am neither a scholar nor a uni- 
versity professor nor a professional theologian. 

But I may claim to be, at least, as competent 
as he is to discriminate between fact and fiction, 
to detect a fraud, to pursue an inquiry which 
requires practical acquaintance with the science 
of evidence. I propose, therefore, to bring his 
methods to bear upon his own position. A 
sceptic both by temperament and by training, 

* p. 19. 
12 



Cbrf5tfani3e& IRatfonaUsm 

I propose to examine his scheme from the 
standpoint of scepticism — thorough, relentless 
scepticism. 

V. DR. HARNACK'S SCHEME TESTED. HIS JESUS 
IS NOT OUR DIVINE LORD AND SAVIOUR. 

And let no one he either stnmbled or of- 
fended by my words. When I here speak of 
^^Jesns^^ I am referring to Prof. Harnack^s 
Buddha, the mythical founder and hero of his 
Neo-Christianity. I am absolutely incapable 
of speaking, or even of thinking, of onr Divine 
Lord and Saviour in this free and easy fashion. 
If a book about Wilhelm II. of Germany never 
once accorded him his imperial title we should 
know how to account for the omission. To 
attribute it to accident or "style^^ would be 
absurd. And from the first page of these 
lectures to the last the Lord Jesus or the 
Lord Jesus Christ is not named as much as 
once.* In this respect the German Eationalist 
may be bracketed with the French infidel. 

♦ The invariable use in this book of capital letters in 
all pronouns that refer to God, and the invariable absence 
of them for "Jesus," is a straw that indicates the current 
of his mind. 



13 



CbristianiseD TRationaUsm 

And yet there is a difference. Eenan^s denial 
of the deity of Christ does not restrain his 
enthusiastic homage as he contemplates the 
supreme tragedy of Calvary. But enthusiasm 
is vulgar; and Prof. Harnack^s fastidious cul- 
ture forbids his being betrayed into the least 
semblance of emotion in presence of the Cross. 
Here are the words of an avowed infidel; with 
what a sense of relief we turn to them from the 
perusal of these pages, penned by a professing 
Christian : — 

"Eest now in Thy glory! Thy work is achieved, 
thy divinity established. . . A thousand times 
more loved since thy death than during the days 
of thy pilgrimage here below, thou shalt become 
so truly the corner-stone of humanity that to tear 
thy name from this world were to shake it to its 
foundations. Between thee and God men shall dis- 
tinguish no longer. Thou hast utterly vanquished 
death, take possession of thy kingdom."* 

But to return to Prof. Harnack's scheme. 
^^The teaching of Jesus'^ is the basis of it. But 
what do we know of his teaching? Let me 
test this by an illustration. The Judge^s charge 

* Kenan's Life of Jesus, chap. xxv. 



14 



CbristfaniseS ^Kationalism 

to the Grand Jury in opening the assizes for 
a county always commands attention in Ire- 
land. And for some years I used to supply two 
of the leading Dublin newspapers with reports 
of all such charges delivered on the circuit to 
which I was attached as a barrister. I could 
not write shorthand; but by recording the key 
words of every sentence I was able to furnish 
a verbatim report from memory. On the only 
occasion that my accuracy was ever challenged^ 
the Judge himself confirmed it when appealed 
to. I founds however, that if even a few hours 
intervened the spell was broken, and I could 
not attempt more than a precis. And after 
the lapse of months, or even weeks, I should 
have hesitated to supply a precis. But here 
we are asked to believe that men who had no 
special aptitude for such a task, and who, we 
are told, are not always to be trusted even 
when they record events that occurred before 
their eyes, transcribed, long after they were 
uttered, the very words of prolonged dis- 
courses, such as the Sermon on the Mount. 
Was there ever a suggestion more utterly un- 
worthy of acceptance by sensible people ! Is it 



15 



CbrfstfanfaeD IRatfonalism 

not clear as light that Matthew is the real 
author of the Sermon on the Mount ?* 

But this is not all. Put the question to a 
mother, ^^f you were forced to give up one of 
your children, which of them would you sacri- 
fice V^ and you will never get an answer. But 
when you ask a Christian, "If you were forced 
to give up three of the Gospels, which would 
you retain T^ the prompt and unequivocal reply 
is always "John".^^ To the Christian the words 
of the great Teacher as recorded in the fourth 
Gospel are more precious than all the rest. 
But "the author of it^^ — Prof. Harnack tells 
us — "drew up the discourses himself, and illus- 
trated great thoughts by imaginary situations/^ 

VI. WAS DR. HARNACK'S ''JESUS" AS GREAT AS 
THE DISCIPLES? 

This suggests a conclusion of the most start- 
ling kind. While Eenan accords to his "Jesus^^ 
a position "far above His disciples,^^ and places 
Him "on the highest summit of human great- 

* Of course I am here arguing on Dr. Harnack's as- 
sumption that the Gospels are mere human documents 
and not divinely inspired. The question of inspiration 
is too large for discussion here. I beg to refer to my 
book, The Bible and Modern Criticism, especially chapters 
vii. and xiii. 

16 



Cbristianfseb IRatfonalism 

ness/^ Prof. Harnack^s "Jesus^^ is plainly no 
more than primus inter pares. 'Now here is an 
inexorable dilemma. If the fourth Gospel is 
authentic, Prof. Harnack^s scheme collapses 
like a house of cards. If otherwise^ then the 
fact confronts us that the ^^discourses^^ of this 
unknown disciple — let us call him John II. — 
have, throughout the whole Christian era, exer- 
cised a wider and prof ounder influence over the 
minds and hearts of men than the sayings of 
^^Jesus^^ himself. It has often happened in 
the world^s history that the real leader in a 
great movement has been overshadowed by 
someone whose personal magnetism has se- 
cured for him greater popularity. 

And he is not the only claimant to pre- 
eminence. That the author of this Gospel, 
which some would call the greatest book in 
the world — a book, moreover, written at such 
a time — should not have left even a tradition 
of his personality or name is a supposition 
which tries even a trained capacity for misbe- 
lief. But his anonymity would tell against 
him in a plebiscite. In Paul, on the other 
hand, we have a man whose matchless life- 
story lies before us, not only in his own epis- 
B 17 



Cbristtant3e& IRatfonalism 

tles^ but in the narrative of Luke. His unre- 
served and passionate devotion to his Master 
only serves to increase his hold upon our re- 
spect and admiration. Is it so clear a case 
then that the modern Jew is wrong in saying 
that Paul v/as the founder of Christianity? 
His was ^^the boldest enterprise/^ Dr. Harnack 
tells us ; and he ventured upon it ^ Vithout be- 
ing able to appeal to a single word of his 
Master^s.^^* Then again the claims of Peter 
cannot be ignored. Nor am I sure that^, in the 
view of not a few, these popular candidates 
for chiefship would not be overshadowed by 
the tragic figure of the Baptist. At all events 
the question is worth looking into by the light 
of Prof. Harnack^s scheme. And it will prob- 
ably be found that the grounds on which some 
would veto the discussion have less weight 
than they suppose. 

VII. BUT WAS NOT "JESUS" THE MESSIAH AND 
SON OF GOD? 

It may be demanded, for example, ^^Was 
not Jesus the Messiah? Was it not He who 
preached the kingdom? Was He not the Son 

* p. 179. 
18 



CbrfstianiseJ) IRationalism 

of God? Did He not die for men? Was it 
not He who brought the message of the Gos- 
pel ?^^ Xow all this may prove to be no more 
than an appeal to the prejudices created by 
traditional beliefs. Let us examine it in the 
clear light of the ^^latest scholarship^^ and 
^^modern thought/^ 

^^Jesus'' was the Messiah. Yes, but what 
does this imply? We are told that the dis- 
covery was forced on Him — how, we cannot 
tell — when He had ^^settled accounts with 
Himself/^ It was the solution of ^^a surging 
chaos of disparate feeling as well as of con- 
tradictor}^ theory/^* This ^Hheory/^ moreover, 
was connected with ^^the kingdom ;^^ and this 
again ^"^Jesus took from the religious traditions 
of His nation/'t ^The idea of the two king- 
doms, of God and of the devil . . . was an 
idea which Jesus simply shared with his con- 
temporaries. He did not start it, but He grew 
up in it and He retained it.^^J ISTo, He did not 
start it. It was John the Baptist who not 
only started it, but gave it definite form. ]^ot 
that this matters much^ for the whole concep- 
tion springs from Jewish tradition and ignor- 

*p. 135. tp. 52. $p. 54. 

19 



Cbristfaniseb ^Kationalism 

ance : "Ultimately the kingdom is nothing but 
the treasure which the soul possesses in the 
eternal and merciful God/^* 

Well, but "Jesus" was the Son of God. Yes, 
but let us not forget what we have already 
learned. This is merely an "idea/^ not a fact. 
As a matter of fact, He was the son of Joseph 
of Xazareth. In this connection "the name of 
Son, rightly understood, means nothing but 
the knowledge of God. . . . Jesus is con- 
vinced that He knows God in a way in which 
no one ever knew Him before.^f Hence His 
claim to be the Son of God. But this is not 
"the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ'* 
— we have drifted very far from such a con- 
ception as that — but merely "the God whom 
Jesus Christ called His Father, and who is also 
our Father.^'t It is not that He has raised us 
to a higher level, but that He stands beside 
us on the level of our common humanity. He 
knew God better than other men, that is all. 

♦p. 77. tp. 128. tp. 30L 



20 



Cbrfstfani3e& IRationalfsm 



VIII. THE ''MESSAGE** BROUGHT BY DR. HAR- 
NACK'S "JESUS" CONTAINED NOTHING NEW. 

But, it will be urged, does not the message 
that He brought decide the question — ^^a glad 
message assuring us of life eternal/'* a mes- 
sage that brings to us ^^the certainty of re- 
demption, humility, and joy in GodP'^f High 
sounding words these, but let us examine them. 
Dr. Harnack analyses the ^^message^^ for us. It 
relates to three spheres, he tells us, which in 
fact "coalesce.^^ And these are ^^the kingdom 
of God, God as the Father and the infinite 
value of the human soul, and the higher right- 
eousness showing itself in love.^'l But what 
is this ^^higher righteousness T^ To love God 
and our neighbours. Surely the true Eationalist 
will enter a protest here. The light of nature 
will teach us fhat. That cold light, indeed, 
will neither solve the mystery of our strange 
incapacity to obey the law of our being, nor 
yet give us strength to fulfil that law. For 
Nature has no word of either help or pity in 
the case of failure, albeit its voice is clear on 
behalf of truth and good and right, and against 
♦p. 146. tp. 29a. $p. 77. 

21 



Cbristianiseb IRationalism 

error and evil and wrong. And here the Chris- 
tian will join with the Eationalist in his pro- 
test; for this is precisely what he means when 
he describes the decalogue as ^^the moral law/^ 
The fact is, that Prof. Harnack^s contempt for 
the Old Testament and its ^^capricious and war- 
like Jehovah^^* has led him to forget that this 
law of love was preached in the Pentateuch, 
and that in proclaiming it "Jesns^^ was avow- 
edly quoting Moses.f 

The same cause, perhaps, has blinded him to 
the fact that "the kingdom/^ as he conceives it, 
is taught as fully in the Old Testament as in 
the N"ew. For if "the kingdom is nothing but 
the treasure which the soul possesses in the 
eternal and merciful God,^^J the fact is indis- 
putable that the worship of hearts that have 
possessed this treasure has always found its 
truest and fullest expression in the language 
of the Psalms. 

♦ p. 76. 
t The "New Commandment" was not to love a neigh- 
bour, but to love a fellow-disciple according to the 
standard of the Master's love. 

t p. 77. 



22 



Cbrfstianiseb IRationalfsm 



IX. UNIVERSAL FATHERHOOD. 

There was nothing new, then, in the message 
in so far as it related to ^^the kingdom^^ and 
the ^^higher righteousness.^^ But the third 
sphere remains. We are told that ^"^the gospel 
is the knowledge and recognition of God as the 
Father ;^^ and more definitely still, that God^s 
Fatherhood is the main article in Jesus' mes- 
sage.'^ That is, of course, the relationship 
of Father as existing between God and all man- 
kind, for no other is recognized in Dr. Har- 
nack's scheme. Now here a strange problem 
presents itself, but it concerns Prof. Harnack 
personally. Any one with a concordance at 
hand can ascertain that, unless it be the rela- 
tionship between God and men in virtue of 
creation, the Bible knows nothing of universal 
Fatherhood; and further, that this relationship 
formed no part of the Gospel ^^message.'^ In- 
deed there was no need for such a "message/^ 
for men were not yet sufficiently ^^cultured^' to 
know that the race had been evolved from ^^a 
primordial germ'' through a nearer ancestry of 
^^anthropoid apes." Even the heathen recog- 
nized fatherhood in that sense. The Apostle 

23 



Cbrfstianf3e& IRationalism 

Paul, therefore, in addressing Athenian idola- 
ters, could appeal to it, adopting the very 
words of their own poets, "For we are also his 
offspring/^ And the Jew already possessed the 
truth of Fatherhood in a far higher sense, in 
connection with the covenant. 

There was nothing new, therefore, in the 
conception of the Divine Fatherhood, any more 
than in that of "the kingdom^^ or of "the law 
of love/^ But what was characteristic in the 
teaching of the New Testament was that 
Divine grace admitted those who were in a 
special sense "disciples^^* to a relationship 
which depended neither on creation nor yet on 
the covenant, but on a new birth by the 
Divine Spirit. That this sonship was strictly 
limited to those who were thus born again is 
the plain teaching of the fourth Gospel. But 
no more emphatic denial of the figment of 
universal Fatherhood in this sphere will be 
found in the fourth Gospel than is contained 
in the following words recorded in the first : — 
"No one knoweth the Son save the Father; 

♦ In taking the Sermon on the Mount as addressed to 
the multitude, Dr. Harnacli overlooljs the first verse of 
Matt. V. 

24 



Cbrfstfani3eO IRatfonalfsm 

neither doth any one know the Father save the 
Son^ and lie to whomsoever the Son willeth 
to reveal Him/^'^ The fact is that Prof Har- 
naek studies the Bible with a mind so entirely 
prepossessed by what he expects and intends to 
find there, that he reads into the Gospels a 
doctrine which they expressly condemn, and 
fails to find what lies open on the surface. 

But more than this. In addressing those 
who are described as ^Tborn again by the living 
and eternally abiding Word of God/^ the 
Apostle Peter reminds them that the God of 
whom he speaks is "the Father who without re- 
spect of persons Judgeth according to every 
man^s work/^ But Dr. Harnack is far too refined 
to offend his readers by warning them that men 
are sinners, and that sin calls for judgment. 
A cynic, surely, might suggest, therefore, that 
our family relationships would supply a figure 
more accurate and more apt than Fatherhood 
to describe the God of his scheme of "Christi- 
anity.^^ He is rather like the favourite uncle 
who has no share in the discipline of the home, 
but whose kindnesses and gifts to the children, 

♦ Matt. xi. 27. 



25 



CbrfstfaniseD IRationalfsm 

naughty and good alike, endear him to them 
all! 

X. "WHAT IS THERE LEFT US? MERE 
RATIONALISM. 

And now it is high time to pause that we 
may consider whether anything is left to sup- 
port the Nazarene^s claims to transcendent 
homage. ^^What is there left us T^ our author 
may well demand. I own I cannot see that 
anything is left us, unless it be the tradition of 
an ideal life, to serve as a pattern of all good 
for all time. And as we stand amid the wreck 
of everything on which the Christian faith has 
rested during all the centuries, it is impossible 
to keep back the fear lest that life too may 
prove to be nothing but a mere ^^idea^^ — the 
splendid dream of those noble and generous 
enthusiasts who imagined that the son of 
Joseph was the Son of God. 

Of the Greek Church Prof. Harnack writes 
that it took the form ^^not of a Christian prod- 
uct in Greek dress, but of a Greek product in 
Christian dress.^^ And of his own scheme we 
may aver that it is not Christianity in the for- 
eign garb of Eationalism, but Eationalism dis- 

26 



<Ebrfstfani3e& IRatfonalism 

gnised in Christian language. If even a soap or 
soda-water manufacturer adopts a trade-mark 
fitted to deceive the public, the law restrains 
his action; but there is no tribunal to issue an 
injunction against misuse of the sacred title of 
"Christianity/^ And Dr. Harnack^s system is 
not even a travesty of Christianity, it is in all 
essentials anti-Christian. If any should think 
this language unwarranted, I would justify it 
by the application of a clear and simple test. 
In the light of this German theology can we 
still condemn the crucifixion of the Nazarene? 

XI. UNDER DR. HARNACK'S SCHEME THE CRUCI- 
FIXION WAS JUSTIFIABLE. 

We start back and shudder at the question. 
But may not this be due to thoughts which, if 
Prof. Harnack^s book be true, are superstitious 
and erroneous. Let us be sensible and fair. 
Why did the Jews demand that execution? 
Why did Pilate authorize it? It is denied by 
some that the ^STazarene ever claimed divine, or 
even kingly, homage. But the ^^Higher Criti- 
cism^^ deals only with the documents, whereas 
the student of evidence looks to the facts; and 
in view of the facts the denial is unworthy of 

27 



Cbrfstianf3e& IRatfonalism 

attention. Pilate seems to have been a reason- 
ably fair and broad-minded Eoman magistrate. 
For Jewish subtilties of creed or controversy 
he cared nothing. But the claim to kingship 
gave the Jews a weapon which they might use 
against Him with His imperial master. ^^Who- 
soever maketh himself a king speaketh against 
Caesar.^^ This it was that forced his hand. 

According to Prof. Harnack^ the prisoner 
might have settled the matter by explaining 
that His kingdom was ^^nothing but the treas- 
ure which the soul possesses in the eternal and 
merciful God.^^ And Pilate's soldiers, instead 
of abusing Him, would have protected Him 
from violence as He passed out a free man to 
resume His ministry. But in framing the 
^"^accusation^^ for the cross — ^'The King of the 
Jews'' — Pilate made plain the ground of his 
judgment. A claim to deity he might have 
dismissed as the delusion of a fanatic, for he 
struggled to save Him; but the royal claim 
raised a question which he could not safely 
ignore. Considering the age in which he lived 
and the circumstances in which he acted, does 
not Prof. Harnack's book take from us the 



28 



Cbrfstianfseb TRatfonalism 

only ground on which we can with fairness 
censure him? 

And if by the same tests we consider the 
conduct of the Sanhedrim we shall probably 
arrive at a similar result. It is the fashion to 
denounce these men as hypocrites or fiends. 
But Peter^s testimony was explicit that they 
acted ignorantly and in good faith. And the 
testimony of Paul — himself a Pharisee — ^is that 
they were sincere men^ and that they had ^^a 
zeal for God.^^ The facts give proof that the 
Nazarene was understood to lay claim to deity. 
And here it may be remarked that these same 
facts afford strongs incidental proof of the 
authenticity of the fourth Gospel^ for there 
it is chiefly that words are recorded which 
seem to allow of no other meaning. This, 
moreover, accounts for the antipathy to that 
Gospel displayed by critics of a certain class. 

The question here, remember, is not the re- 
jection of their Messiah by those who were the 
accredited custodians of that Divine revelation 
of which the Messiah was the substance and 
fulfilment. What concerns us is the rejection 
of Prof. HarnacFs ^^Jesus^^ by the official 
guardians and leaders of ^^the Jews^ religion^^ 

29 



Cbrfstfaniset) IRatfonalism 

— a religion that was characterized by intense 
jealousy for the honour of Jehovah. That 
^'^Jesns^^ used language which to them appeared 
profane is indisputable. A few frank words of 
disavowal would have availed to clear him of 
the charge; but no such words were uttered. 
On the contrary. He boldly accepted it.* What, 
then, were these men to do? They were not 
responsible for the brutalities committed by 
the soldiers or the mob; and having regard — I 
use the words again — to the age in which these 
events occurred, and to the circumstances of 
the time, was there anything particularly hei- 
nous in their action? Can the wickedness of 
the Jewish Sanhedrim in decreeing the death of 
^^Jesus^^ be compared for a moment with the 
wickedness of the ^^Christian Church^^ when 
(to select a single case among unnumbered 
thousands) the Council of Constance com- 
mitted Huss to the flames ? 

^^What is there left us?'^ we may again ex- 
claim. And from being an inquiry for discus- 
sion the words become the cry of our despair. 
What is there left? The Christ of God? But 
this, we are told, is no more than an ^^idea,^^ 

♦In Matt. xxvi. 63-66. 
30 



<rbrfstiani3e& IRatfonalism 

the creation of the mind of Paul. Here are 
Dr. Harnack^s words: "Paul became the au- 
thor of the speculative idea that not only was 
God in Christ, but that Christ himself was 
possessed of a peculiar nature of a heavenly- 
kind/^ In a word, that Christ was something 
more than Joseph^s son. 

'The Gospel?^' Yes, but not ''the gospel of 
our salvation^^— -"that Christ died for our sins 
according to the Scriptures/^ This, too, is a 
Pauline "idea/^ His was "the gospel of God 
concerning His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord/^ 
But "the gospel as Jesus proclaimed it,^^ Dr. 
Harnack insists with all the emphasis of italic 
type, ^'Tias to do with the Father and not with 
the Son/' 

And let no one suppose that the foregoing 
quotations give an unfair impression of the 
author^s scheme. Here is the concluding sen- 
tence of his book. It is the summary and the 
climax of all that has gone before, and it has 
manifestly been framed with elaborate care : — 

"If vntloL a steady will we aflfirm the forces and 
the standards which on the summits of our inner 
life shine out as our highest good, nay, as our real 
self; if we are earnest and courageous enough to 

31 



CbriatfaniseJ) IRatfonalfsm 

accept them as the great Reality and direct our 
lives by them; and if we then look at the course 
of mankind's history, follow its upward develop- 
ment, and search, in strenuous and patient service 
for the communion of minds in it, we shall not 
faint ia weariness and despair, but become certain 
of God, of the God whom Jesus Christ called His 
Father, and who is also our Father." 

XII. DR. HARNACK'S ** CHRISTIANITY " AND 
ANCIENT PAGANISM COMPARED. 

Here^ then^ is the authoritative answer to 
the question^ ^'What is there left ns T^ I have 
already compared the spirit of Dr. Harnack^s 
religion with that of Eenan^s unbelief; let me 
now compare the results of that religion with 
the higher conceptions of ancient Paganism. 
Let me contrast the closing passage of Dr. 
Harnack^s treatise on ^^Christianity^^ with the 
closing passage of Cicero^s treatise on ^^Old 
Age.^^ In view of the heathen doctrine of the 
immortality of the soul the Pagan puts from 
him the desire to live his life over again. He 
refuses^ ^^after having run his course^ to be 
called back from the goal to the starting- 
place.^^ And he adds : — 



32 



Cbrfstianiseb IRatfonalism 

"I retire from tins world as it were from an inn, 
and not as if from a liome, for nature has assigned 
it to us as an hotel for sojourn, not as a %cal 
habitation.' O glorious day! when I shall set out on 
my journey to that divine conclave and company of 
spirits, and when to this troubled, this polluted scene 
I shall bid farewell!" 

The reader can judge between the Eoman 
Paganism of 2000 years ago and the German 
"Christianity^^ of to-day. The one seems in- 
stinct with brightness and hope; the other 
aims no higher than to rescue ns from "weari- 
ness and despair.^^ 

And can it avail even for this ? What mes- 
sage has it for the ordinary man of the world, 
who, being neither a Pharisee nor a fool, is 
conscious that he is a sinner and needs for- 
giveness ? And this just because he is "certain 
of Grod, the God whom Jesus Christ called 
His Father'^ the God of the Bible, "the faith- 
ful God who keepeth judgment and mercy with 
them that love Him and keep His command- 
ments, to a thousand generations.^^ But he 
has not loved Him, neither has he kept His 
commandments, but broken them. 

Even if he is better than his neighbours, and 
c 

33 



<rbrf6tfanf3e& IRatfonalism 

has habitually tried to please God, he is op- 
pressed by a sense of utter failure. And if 
he has lived like other men, the warning of 
conscience is still plainer and louder. It is not 
^^the certainty of God^^ that he craves, for he 
is intelligent enough to know that Nature is 
but another name for God, and that Nature 
is stern and pitiless in punishing. Nothing 
will satisfy him but the certainty of a Saviour, 
And when Prof. Harnack speaks of ^^the sum- 
mits of his inner life^^ and the "upward de- 
velopment of mankind^s history,^^ the words 
only mock him. In other circumstances, per- 
haps they might interest and amuse him; but 
in view of the realities of eternity they seem 
to savour of mere levity. Even a Eomish priest 
with his crucifix would be a more welcome 
visitor. 

And his preference would be right. For the 
position of Eomanism to-day is akin to that of 
Judaism in Messianic times. It has not re- 
nounced the truth, but it "holds it down in 
Unrighteousness.^^ The great doctrines of the 
Christian faith remain — the deity of Christ, 
redemption through. His blood, 'the divine 
authority of Holy Scripture — ^but they are cor- 

84 



Cbrxsttaniseb IRationalfsm 

rupted and concealed by a mass of human tra- 
dition and error. Many a devout Eomanist, 
therefore^ may be acknowledged as a fellow- 
Christian. But infidelity absolutely separates 
from Christ. It is not a mere perversion of 
the faith; it is a denial of it. Apostate Chris- 
tianity is not so hopeless as an apostasy that 
utterly undermines Christianity. 

XIII. THESE RESULTS ARE THE OUTCOME OF THE 

HIGHER CRITICISM CRUSADE. ORIGIN AND 

HISTORY OF THE MOVEMENT. 

And this is the abyss in which Dr. Harnack^s 
teaching would engulf us. And the road which 
leads to it is the Higher Criticism. ISTot so^ it 
will perhaps be said^ with our English critics. 
But the explanation of this is simple. As a 
nation we are not as logical as the Germans, 
and most of our English critics still feel the 
power of truth which every free and fearless 
thinker recognises to be inconsistent with the 
principles and conclusions of the Higher Criti- 
cism. 

But here we must distinguish. The system 
of Bible study for which Eichhorn coined that 
title is ostensibly an examination of the sacred 

35 



CbristfaniseD IRatfonalism 

books with a \iew to analyzing their contents 
and ascertaining their date and authorship. 
Such a study is altogether useful and admir- 
able. And if its legitimate results have dis- 
turbed certain ^^orthodox^^ traditions^ the Bible 
is the gainer, and the true Bible lover welcomes 
the light thus thrown upon the sacred page. 
But Eichhorn had in view also a crusade which 
has no necessary connection whatever with the 
Higher Criticism as thus defined. He and his 
fellow-workers set themselves to win back the 
cultured classes of Germany to Christianity by 
eliminating from the Bible every element to 
which the Eationalists took exception. And 
the Higher Criticism was promptly "captured^^ 
by this sceptical propagandism, and it has 
never shaken off its sinister influence. The 
movement, therefore, which has ever since flown 
that flag is essentially a sceptical crusade 
against the Bible. I do not aver that all criti- 
cal scholars have any such animus or aim. N'ot 
even in Germany is this true of them, and 
much less in England. Many of them, indeed, 
are careful to separate themselves in this re- 
spect from the more advanced of the critics. 
But they all give proof that they feel the force 

36 



Cbrfstiani3eJ) IRationalfsm 

of the current which sets against the Bible; 
and when they use language of apology or re- 
serve it is generally in their defense of Holy 
Scripture^ and not in pressing their criticisms 
to its prejudice. 

Now here several considerations will suggest 
themselves to the thoughtful. The word "critic^^ 
has a double meaning. It may mean a hostile 
examiner or fault-finder, or it may mean a 
judge. And the proper function of the critic 
in the former sense is to supply materials upon 
which the critic in the higher and truer sense 
may adjudicate. For every decision of criti- 
cism involves a judicial inquiry, and experience 
abundantly proves that an expert seldom pos- 
sesses the qualifications necessary for inquiries 
of this kind. This is true even in the legal 
profession. For it is notorious that the best 
lawyer often makes the worst Judge. How 
much more true then must it be in other 
spheres. While, therefore, it is not pretended 
that a knowledge of Hebrew unfits a man for 
deciding the questions with which the Higher 
Criticism deals, it is certain that it gives no 
proof of fitness for such a task. For the most 
eminent Hebrew scholar in Christendom may 

37 



Cbtf9tiani3e& IRationalism 

be singularly wanting in the qualities essential 
in a judge. Indeed, he may have less broad- 
mindedness and common sense than an average 
schoolboy. 

XIV. THE HIGHER CRITICISM DISTINGUISHED 
FROM THE DICTA OF THE "HIGHER CRITICS." 

We must alvrays distinguish, therefore, be- 
tween the decisions of the Higher Criticism 
and the dicta of those who claim to be its 
exponents. If the authorship of a book were 
the subject-matter of a criminal charge or of 
a civil action, the decision of the case would 
not be left to philological experts, at least, not 
in any civilized country. But in these matters 
of supreme importance a thoughtless public is 
browbeaten or cajoled into accepting the ex- 
perts as a final court of appeal. ^^Nothing, 
indeed, is more astonishing to me^' (says Prof, 
von Orelli of Basel) ^^than the readiness with 
which even diligent explorers in this field (of 
Old Testament criticism) attach themselves to 
the dominant theory, and repeat the most rash 
hypotheses, as if they were part of an unques- 
tioned creed.^^ Eef erring to ^"^the ordeal of the 
Englishman's strong and strict sense for fact,'' 

38 



Cbrfstianiseb IRatfonalfsm 



Matthew Arnold writes: ^^We are much mis- 
taken if it does not turn out that this ordeal 
makes great havoc among the vigorous and 
rigorous theories of German criticism concern- 
ing the Bible-documents/^ And in this con- 
nection the following extract from Prof. 
Sayce^s Higher Criticism and the Monuments'^ 
is still more apt and weighty: — 

"The arrogancy of tone adopted at times by the 
^higher criticism' has been productive of nothing 
but mischief; it has aroused distrust even of its 
most certain results, and has betrayed the crit^'c 
into a dogmatism as unwarranted as it is unsci- 
entific. Baseless assumptions have been placed on 
a level with ascertained facts, hasty conclusions 
have been put forward as principles of science, and 
we have been called upon to accept the prepos- 
sessions and fancies of the individual critic as the 
revelation of a new gospel. If the archaeologist 
ventured to suggest that the facts he had discov- 
ered did not support the views of the critic, he 
was told that he was no philologist. The opinion 
of a modern German theologian was worth more, 
at all events in the eyes of his 'school,' than the 
most positive testimony of the monuments of an- 
tiquity." 

These cautions must not be forgotten when 

* p. 5. 
39 



<Ibristiam3e& TRationalfsm 

we are told that "modern scholarship^^ has 
decided this or that respecting the Bible. Nor 
is this all. When we speak of the decisions of 
"the Chnrch^^ we mean that a definite company 
of men^ formally convened like any other cor- 
poration, have discussed and voted upon cer- 
tain subjects. Dr. Harnack, indeed, has done 
good service in showing how little weight is 
due to the decisions of Church Councils,* but 
that does not affect the question here. If, on 
the other hand, we speak of the decisions of 
scholarship, we are using language in a loose 
and figurative sense. When, for example, 
someone says that scholarship has decided that 
the books of the Pentateuch were not written 
in the Mosaic age, he means either that all 
competent scholars have come to this conclu- 
sion, or else that some impersonation called 
"scholarship,^^ distinct from the united voice 
of scholars, has decreed it. But the one al- 

* I refer to his chapters on the Greek and Roman 
churches. Were it not for his laboured efforts to 
prove that the doctrine of the Deity of Christ was a 
product of Greek thought, and that the truth of the 
logos, as well as the word, was of Greek origin, these 
chapters might lead us to forget that the writer was 
not a believer. 



40 



CbristfanfseD IRatfonaHsm 

ternative would be utterly untrue, and the 
other is absolutely unmeaning. 

XV. THE PENTATEUCH CONTROVERSY AS ILLUS- 
TRATING THE METHODS OP THE CRITICS. 

The Pentateuch controversy is so typical of 
the methods of the critics that it may justify 
a digression. It formerly seemed an anachro- 
nism to hold that books of such literary excel- 
lence could have been written in the Mosaic 
age; hence the theory that they belonged to 
the exilic period. But recent discoveries have 
shown that this decision was based on ignor- 
ance. The spade of the explorer has dug up 
proofs that literature flourished long before the 
time of Moses. The critics, however, are in- 
different to all such discoveries. Having made 
up their minds to discredit the Pentateuch, 
they now look about for other grounds to sup- 
port their case. To this end the following 
verse in Jeremiah is pressed into service : ^Tor 
I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded 
them in the day that I brought them out of 
the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings 
and sacrifices'^ (vii. 22). But this merely re- 
cites a fact which is as plainly recorded on the 

41 



Cbristiani3et) IRationalfsm 

open page of the Book of Exodus as is the 
exodus itself. The ritual of the law had noth- 
ing to do with IsraeFs redemption; it was 
given to a people already redeemed and 
brought into covenant relationship with God. 

The spiritual Christian sees a deep signifi- 
cance in this; but the fact is patent to any 
intelligent reader. Here was the announce- 
ment entrusted to Moses at the exodus : "If ye 
will obey My voice indeed^ and keep My cove- 
nant ... ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of 
priests, and an holy nation. Tliese are the 
words which thou shalt speak unto the children of 
Israef"^ And in the passage already cited 
Jeremiah was merely quoting this. Here are 
his words: ^^I spake not unto your fathers 
. . . concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: 
but this thing commanded I them, saying, 
Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye 
shall be my people.^^'f The critics^ use of the 
prophet^s language, therefore, is wholly un- 
warranted. In fact, it is a mere blunder. 

Another of the isolated texts relied on by the 
critics is Exodus vi. 3, which they distort into 
a statement that the name Jehovah was not 

♦ Exodus xix. 5, 6. t Jeremiah vii. 22, 23. 

42 



(rbristfani3e& IRationalfsm 

known to the patriarchs.* But this argument 
refutes itself; for if the Book of Exodus be a 
literary forgery, it is certain that the brilliant 
author of it would not have given himself away 
like this. 

The critics would have us believe that the 
patriarchs were polytheists, and that four cen- 
turies were needed to teach the nation the 
truth that God is One. The lesson was learned 
only in the twelfth generation. This prepos- 
terous and profane theory is refuted by the 
experience of Christian missions in every 
heathen land. Many of us met King Lewanika, 
of Barotsiland, during his recent visit to Eng- 
land, and we know him to be a worshipper of 
the Christians^ God. And the gentleman under 
whose care Lewanika^s son is living in England 
bears unequivocal testimony that the lad is an 
intelligent and earnest Christian. And yet I 
have heard from Captain Bertrand, the dis- 
tinguished Swiss explorer, that a few years ago 
Lewanika was a naked savage, who with his 
own hand murdered his rival chiefs, and that 

* The critics refute each other. Prof. Delitzsch finds 
Yahw^ in an inscription of the time of Hammurabi 
{Babel and Bible.) 



43 



CbrtstiantseD IRationalism 

his drunken orgies at ever)^ new moon were 
marked by unspeakable excesses. Pastor Coil- 
lard, the French missionary, thus achieved in 
a few short years what God Almighty needed 
four centuries to accomplish! 

The revelation of Jehovah at the exodus is 
like the revelation of the Father by the Lord 
Jesus Christ. Dr. Harnack's "^^Jesus^^ dis- 
covered the Father; the Lord Jesus Christ 
revealed the Father. But it is only the spiritual 
Christian who knows the Father in the true 
and deeper sense. In the sad story of Mazzini^s 
life there are no sadder words than these : ^^I 
feel God^s power and law more every day, but 
He cannot weep with me or fill my souFs void; 
for I am a man still and tied to earth.^^ But 
this was because Mazzini was (to use Dr. Har- 
nack^s phrase) ^^certain of God/^ and yet ignor- 
ant of Christ. For the Christian, albeit "a 
man still and tied to earth/^ knows a God in 
Christ who can weep with him and fill his 
souFs void; in a word, he knows the Father. 
"Superior persons,^^ I suppose, would call this 
anthropomorphism. But as they do not apply 
the term to their own theory of the Fatherhood 
of God, the Christian need not be scared by it. 

44 



Cbrf5tfani3e& IRationalism 



XVI. MOSES AND HAMMURABI. 

Eeference has already been made to the 
latest discovery of the critics. But yesterday 
Genesis xiv. was rejected as nnhistorical. 
Amraphel was dismissed as a myth, jnst as 
Nebuchadnezzar used to be. The article about 
him in Smithes BiUe Dictionary is merely a 
few lines to say that explorations in Babylonia 
might probably bring something to light about 
him. Dr. Pinches it was who expressed that 
hope. The frontispiece to his last book is a, 
portrait of Amraphel; for to-day Amraphel (or 
Hammurabi) stands out as one of the great 
figures of the past, and his code of laws excites 
our admiration. But what use do the critics 
make of the discovery? Instead of acknowl- 
edging the ignorance and folly of the grounds 
on which they formerly rejected the Mosaic 
code, they now proclaim that that code is 
merely an adaptation of AmrapheFs. 

But this only displays their animus against 
the Bible, and their incapacity to deal with 
questions of evidence. Every pastoral people 
with any claim to be civilized would have laws 
such as are common to both codes. But if 

45 



<rbrfstiani3e& IRatfonalism 

the question be raised whether the one was 
derived from the other^ the true critic — the 
expert in evidence — will ask whether the 
penalties are the same. As a matter of fact 
there is no kinship between the two codes in 
any of the incidental points by which the 
student of evidence would decide the question. 
We all wash our faces; and so did King 
Amraphel; but our practice in this respect is 
not based on his. 

Nor is this all. Error is in its very nature 
absurd, and this Hammurabi theory exemplifies 
the fact. Blinded by their fixed determination 
to disparage the Pentateuch, the critics have 
here sprung a mine which blows their Penta- 
teuchal theories into the air. It is not credible 
that Moses was ignorant of the legal codes in 
operation in other nations than Egypt, and no 
one who has studied the human element in 
divine revelation would be surprised to find 
proofs of this in "the Mosaic code.^^ But what 
then becomes of the theory that the books of 
Moses were written in the era of the exile? 
Eliminate all element of divine authorship, as 
the critics do, and the inference is obvious 
that a code of laws for the young nation of 

46 



Cbristiani3e5 IRationalism 

the exodus would be based upon the best exist- 
ing code then available. But to suppose that 
the author of the critic^s Pentateuch, writing 
in Palestine some fourteen centuries later, 
would take the Hammurabi code as his model, 
is a theory too wild for discussion. Every 
proof the critics can offer that the Jewish code 
was based on the Babylonian code goes to sup- 
port the view that the Jewish code was framed 
in the Mosaic age. 

The critical hjrpothesis, moreover, is suffi- 
ciently refuted by the single fact that the 
Pentateuch was tJie Bihle of the Samaritans. 
That purely Jewish books, and Jewish books of 
a time long after the captivity of the ten 
tribes, would have been singled out for such 
unique and unbounded reverence by a people 
who hated everything Jewish, is a figment un- 
worthy of discussion. Its acceptance by the 
critics proves their unfitness to deal with any 
question of the kind. 



47 



Cbrf6tiani3e& IRationalism 



XVII. THE THEORIES OF THE CRITICS VIOLATE 
TRUE CRITICISM. ANALOGY OF THE DREY- 
FUS CASE. 

But, we shall be told, the grounds on which 
scholars assign the Mosaic books to the sixth 
century B. C. are the result of a critical exam- 
ination of the text. The statement is abso- 
lutely unwarranted and untrue. In placing 
"Moses^' after ''the prophets/^ the critics not 
only dislocate the whole scheme of Biblical 
revelation — Old and New Testament alike — 
and ignore the plain teaching of our divine 
Lord, but they flagrantly violate their own 
much-vaunted methods of criticism. If they 
applied those methods to the examination of 
the Pentateuch they would find abundant proof 
that the books were written in the very cir- 
cumstances in which they profess to have been 
written.* 

As already urged, we must distinguish be- 



* To enlarge on this here is, of course, impossible. 
But overwhelming proof of my statement will be found 
in the pages of Lea? Mosaica^ from the first article by 
Prof. Sayce to the last by Dr. Wace, Dean of Canter- 
bury. As I write, another book, equally convincing and 
much more accessible, has been published in an English 
translation by the Religious Tract Society, Are the 

48 



(Ibri5tianf3e& IRationalism 

tween true criticism and the dicta of those who 
claim to be Higher Critics. The work of the 
German Higher Critics and their English disci- 
ples has the same relation to the principles of 
criticism that the Dreyfus trial in France had 
to the principles of justice. The judges de- 
cided the case and then proceeded to try it. 
The object of the trial was not to investigate 
the charge, but to convict the accused. And 
so here. Having made up their minds on 
grounds now proved to be untenable that the 
Mosaic books are forgeries, the critics set them- 
selves to establish this conclusion. And to 
attain this end they violate the first principles 
of criticism; they ignore everything urged on 
the other side by scholars as able as them- 
selves; and, as in the Drej^fus trial, nothing 
is too trivial for use if only it can be made to 
support their case. 

In a court of justice every doubtful point is 
construed in favour of the accused. But with 

Critics Right? by Wilhelm MoUer (who was at one time 
"immovably convinced of the irrefutable correctness of 
the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis"), with an introduction 
by Prof, von Orelli, D. D. And by all means see Canon 
Girdlestone's Hebrew Criticism. ( " Twentieth Century 
Papers," John F. Shaw & Co., 48 Paternoster Row, Lou- 
don.) 

D 49 



Cbristianfset) IRationalism 

the critics, as in the Dreyfus trial, the opposite 
principle prevails. It has been well stated that 
^^the idea of a written revelation may be said 
to be logically involved in the notion of a 
living God/'* And if this be so, it is certain 
that the world cannot have been left without 
a revelation during the thousands of years 
before the Mosaic age. But the critics show 
grounds for supposing that several documents 
were used in compiling the Book of Genesis. 
And the inference is legitimate that these were 
the records of earlier revelations. Archaeology, 
however, has brought to light old-world pagan 
records, which contain, in the midst of much 
that is grotesque and silly, traditions akin to 
those of Genesis. The critical scholar main- 
tains that the wild and silly version is the 
original. Old-fashioned orthodoxy insists that 
Genesis is the original. The true critic — the 
judicial expert — asserts his right to adjudicate 
in the matter, and his knowledge of human 
nature and of the prinicples of evidence leads 
him to decide that both the Mosaic records 
and the pagan inscriptions are derived from 
the same original, and that the Mosaic records, 

• Principal Fairbairn, of Mansfield College, Oxford. 

50 



Cbrf0tfani3e& IRatfonalfsm 

being (in contrast with the inscriptions) coher- 
ent and simple and pure, are the authentic 
version of that original. 

Prof. Delitzsch^s Babel and Bible supplies 
striking evidence to confirm this conclusion, 
and at the same time it illustrates in a no 
less striking manner the writer^s incapacity to 
reason from the facts which he advances. If 
I suspect an agent of betraying my confidence 
by repeating what I communicate to him, I 
may test him by telling him something which 
I invent for the purpose. The publication of 
any part of my story is proof of his dishonesty. 
But not so if I tell him facts; for those facts, 
being known to others, may have been im- 
parted by others. And so here. If, for exam- 
ple, there was no creation and no deluge. Prof. 
Delitzsch^s argument is sound. But not other- 
wise. His inference as to the sabbath is a 
notable instance of this. "But^^ (he writes) 
^^since the Babylonians also had a sabbath day 
. . . it is scarcely possible for us to doubt that 
we owe the blessings decreed in the sabbath or 
Sunday rest^^ to Babylon. Does the Professor 
deny that the weekly day of rest is a divine 



51 



Cbrfsttani3e& TRationalism 

institution? And if he does not deny this his 
argument is absolutely puerile. 

He sinks to a still lower level when he refers 
the Biblical teaching about angels to the fact 
that ^a Babylonian ruler required an army of 
messengers to carry his commands into every 
land/^ And in this slough of pretentious folly 
he probably "touches bottom^^ when he con- 
nects our Lord^'s use of spittle in certain of His 
miracles with the words of the pagan prayer, 
"0 Marduk! to thee belongs the spittle of 
life/^ And the amazing part of it is that any- 
one should take all this as discrediting the 
Bible. It discredits only the lecturer. It 
shows him to be a notable specimen of a not 
uncommon type of university "don'^; a man 
of great erudition and culture, but wholly 
wanting in common sense and a capacity for 
reasoning. "BabeF^ is his hobby, and he is 
"riding it to death.' 



j> 



XVIII. BABYLON REPRESENTED THE APOSTASY 
OP THE ANCIENT V^ORLD. 

The fact is that Babylon had far more in- 
fluence over men, and specially over Israel, 
than even Prof. Delitzsch supposes. It was to 

52 



CbtfsttaniseO IRationaltsm 

the ancient world what Papal Home has been 
to Christendom. There is not a truth of 
Christianity which is not travestied by Eome; 
there was no truth of the primeval revelations 
that was not travestied by Babylon. Therefore 
it is that Babylon was so abhorrent to God and 
to His people; therefore it is that in the 
Apocalypse the name is connected with the 
Christian apostasy. The ordinances of the 
Hebrew cult were not, as the German Ea- 
tionalists suppose, picked out of that old-world 
dirt-heap; they were the repromulgation of 
divine truths which Babylon had perverted 
and degraded. What wonder is it if the false 
bore resemblance to the true ! 

And this leads me to repeat with emphasis 
that the main question here at issue is not 
the truth of traditional beliefs or of so-called 
^^^orthodox^^ interpretations of Scripture. For 
these I care but little; and this being so, I 
have no fear of criticism of the Bible, however 
searching, if only it be fair and intelligent and 
true. But while we hear ad nauseam of the 
'^decisions^^ of criticism, it is not too much to 
say that as yet the tribunal has not even been 
constituted which could claim to adjudicate 

53 



Cbristtani3e& IRationalfsm 

upon the Scriptures in the name of criticism. 
We demand a fair tribunal^ whereas the critics 
have entered on the inquiry with a prejudice. 
We demand a competent tribunal, whereas at 
every step the critics give proof that they are 
lacking in the primary qualification of practi- 
cal acquaintance with the science of evidence. 
And on the accepted principle of trial by one's 
peers we demand also a Christian tribunal, a 
tribunal, that is, which recognises the deity of 
Christ, and will accept His authority as a 
teacher. For nothing short of this has any 
right to the name of ^^Christian.^^ 

XIX. WHAT THEN IS CHRISTIANITY? THE 
MATERIALS FOR THE TRUE INQUIRY. 

To return to Dr. Harnack's book; his 
^^Christianity^' is merely the highest expres- 
sion of natural religion. Had he lived in the 
first century he would have taught the Jew 
that there was no ^^offense,'^ and the Greek 
that there was no ^^foolishness'' in the cross. 
His book would have taken Athens and Jeru- 
salem by storm. But to call this Christianity 
is a sheer abuse of language; for Christianity 
is, in contrast with natural religion, a divine 

54 



Cbristfani3e& IRationaUsm 

revelation. What, then, is that revelation? 
Destructive criticism of this book only clears 
the ground for consideration of the question, 
^^What is Christianity T^ For the answer which 
Dr. Harnack supplies is not only inadequate, 
but false. 

And we must begin by rejecting much that 
he includes, and by insisting on much that he 
rejects. The question is to be answered in the 
light of the Bible as a whole, and not of 
capriciously selected fragments of the New 
Testament. And the inquiry must not be 
prejudiced by reference to the history of 
Christendom. For ^^the Christian religion" 
bears the same relation to the New Testament 
that ^^the Jew^s religion" bears to the Old: it 
is a human system based on a divine revelation. 
What concerns us here is the character and 
scope of that revelation. 

XX. THE OLD TESTAMENT IS ACCREDITED BY 

CHRIST. 

And let the fact be kept plainly in view 
that our acceptance of the Old Testament as a 
divine revelation is based upon the teaching 
of the Lord Jesus Christ. "The fact," I say, 

55 



Cbristiani3e& IRatfonalism 

because it is not disputed that He so regarded 
the Hebrew Scriptures. This is admitted by 
the Higher Critics, but they put forward their 
henosis theories in order to evade the force of 
the admission. Such theories, however, are 
but dust thrown in the eyes of the thoughtless. 
For they ignore the fact that the Lord^s 
plainest teaching on this subject was not dur- 
ing the ministry of the humiliation at all, but 
after His resurrection, when He spoke in all 
the fulness of divine knowledge. "Beginning 
from Moses^' (we read) "and from all the 
prophets. He interpreted to them in all the 
Scriptures the things concerning Himself.^' 
And again: "He said unto them. These are 
the words which I spake unto you, while I 
was yet with you, that all things must be 
fulfilled, which were written in the law of 
Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, 
concerning me. Then opened He their under- 
standing, that they might understand the 
scriptures.^^ 



56 



Cbristfanf3e& IRatfonalism 



XXI. CHRIST IS DISCREDITED BY THE CRITICS. 

"The law of Moses, and the prophets, and 
the psalms^^ was the well-known division of the 
Jewish Scriptures — the Old Testament as we 
have it in our English Bible to-day, not one 
chapter more or less. "These are My words 
which I spake unto you, while I was yet with 
you/^ He thus adopted and confirmed all His 
previous teaching respecting Holy Scripture. 
And He sent out His apostles to communicate 
that teaching to others. But the Higher 
Critics would have us believe that instead of 
"opening their understanding that they might 
understand the Scriptures/^ He deluded them 
into misunderstanding the Scriptures, with the 
result that Church and world were kept in 
ignorance and error on the subject for eight- 
een centuries, until the German Eationalists 
exposed the fraud! 

Some of the critics, indeed, would offer us an 
alternative here. They hold that the Lord had 
fuller knowledge than His contemporaries, but 
that on grounds of expediency and policy He 
adapted His teaching to prevailing prejudices 
and ignorance. As a blunt man of the world 



<rbtiBtfani3e& IRationaUsm 

would say, He was not a blind Jew, but only 
an opportunist. And if a disciple of Tom 
Paine should seize upon these statements as 
implying that the Founder of Christianity was 
admittedly either a fool or a knave, the only 
objection which the critics could make would 
be to the gross coarseness of the language. 
Surely we may be pardoned for refusing to 
discuss a position, the mere statement of which 
savours of profanity. 

Not that the critics see anything profane in 
it. But this may be due to the fact that their 
point of view differs from that of the ordi- 
nary Christian. They are not thinking of the 
living Lord, before whom they must stand in 
judgment, but of ^^a man of the name of Jesus 
Christ,^^ the dead Buddha, who is a fit subject 
for post mortem inquiries of this kind. 

Let it be kept clearly in view, then, that it 
is upon the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ 
that we accept the Old Testament Scriptures. 
I avail myself of words borrowed from Dean 
Alford^s Commentary to mark the significance 
of the closing passage of Luke, quoted 
above : — 



58 



CbrtstiantseD iRattonalism 



''The whole Scriptures are a testimony to Him: 
the whole history of the chosen people, with its 
types, and its law, and its prophecies, is a shewing 
forth of Him: and it was here the whole that He 
laid out before them. . . Observe the testimony 
which the verse gives to the divine authority, and 
the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament 
Scriptures: so that the denial of the references to 
Christ's death and glory in the Old Testament is 
henceforth nothing less than a denial of His own. 
teaching:' 

XXII. DR. HARNACK'S MISCONCEPTIONS AND THE 
CAUSE OP THEM. 

At this pointy therefore^ the ways divide, and 
we part company with the sceptics altogether. 
For we receive the Old Testament, not by the 
grace of the critics, but upon the authority of 
our Divine Lord speaking with all the fulness 
of divine wisdom and knowledge. And this 
being so, we study His ministry and mission 
in the light of the Hebrew Scriptures. From 
Him we have learned to read them as "testify- 
ing of jfftm/^as containing "the things concern- 
ing Him/^ This is their esoteric teaching, 
deep down beneath the level at which the 
critics ply their tools. He came not to destroy 
the law,^^ but to fulfil it; not, as Dr. Har- 

59 



i< 



CbristianiseD IRationalism 

nack supposes, to deliver men from belief in 
the Jehovah of the Old Testament, but to con- 
firm all that God had therein declared and 
promised in the past. 

Years ago we were amused by a book about 
England and the English from the pen of a 
distinguished Oriental who had lately visited 
this country. The writer was a shrewd ob- 
server, full of good nature, and ready to take 
a kindly view of us and of our ways. But 
as, of course, he looked at everything from 
outside, his misapprehensions and mistakes 
were many. So it is with Dr. Harnack^s book. 
He has studied Christianity from the outside. 
His "Jesus^^ is only a sort of high-class Gau- 
tama, whose great and noble mind and heart 
struggled toward the light in the midst of pre- 
vailing ignorance and error, begotten of Old 
Testament teaching and a narrow provincial 
environment. 

XXIII. THE *'PTOLEMAIC SYSTEM" OF BIBLE 

STUDY. 

ISTor is it only in the sphere of what is called 
^^spiritual truth^^ that these misconceptions ap- 
pear; they are equally manifest in the lectures 

60 



CbristianiseC) IRationalism 

on the Lord^s teaching relative to social order 
and public law. And naturally so. Suppose 
we had to-day a number of highly cultured 
"men of science^^ who ignored "the law of 
gravitation^^ and adhered to the Ptolemaic 
system of astronomy, the irreconcilable differ- 
ences between such observers and our astron- 
omers of the modern school would obviously 
depend on their regarding phenomena common 
to both from wholly different points of view. 
For to anyone who insists on viewing the 
heavenly bodies from his own standpoint, it 
is certain that sun and moon and stars are 
moving round the earth, and it is equally cer- 
tain that the earth on which he stands is at 
rest. 

This suggestion may seem grotesque, but it 
fairly illustrates what Christians in general 
regard as the root error of the sceptics respect- 
ing the Bible. The astronomer knows that 
the sun, and not the planet on which we live 
is the centre of our system; and he tells us 
that our whole solar system is but a part of 
a system incomparably vaster and greater. 
The Christian interpretation of the Holy 
Scriptures centres in Christ, and the entire 

61 



CbrfstianiseC) IRationalism 

scheme of revelation and redemption is but a 
part of an infinitely greater system revolving 
round, and leading up to, God Himself. 

If a Ptolemaic school of astronomers existed 
to-day, there would doubtless be among them 
men who would denounce the absurdity of 
supposing that the earth was flying through 
space and whirling round like a teetotum, and 
they would deem it but a trial of temper and 
a waste of time to argue with anyone who 
held such a belief. But there would be also 
among them men of more liberal minds, per- 
pared to discuss the question; and no method 
of discussion would be more natural or use- 
ful than that of asking them to accept for the 
sake of argument the views they rejected, and 
to consider the matter on that basis. And so 
here ; all who hold what was formerly regarded 
as the Christian estimate of the Bible are re- 
garded by the baser sort of sceptic as wanting 
in either brains or honesty. But from men of 
a different spirit we can confidently expect a 
fair hearing; and I proceed to discuss the 
matter on the assumption that Christianity is 
true — Christianity, I mean, in the old accepta- 
tion of the word. 

62 



Cbrfstianiseb IRatfonalfsm 

In what follows^ therefore^, I will assume 
that "the Nazarene^^ was the Son of God — 
not in the critics^ sense, but in the Biblical 
sense — the only begotten Son of God; and 
that the Hebrew Scriptures are what He repre- 
sented them to be. And this assumption will 
at once lead us to look for a meaning in much 
that otherwise we should pass by unnoticed, 
and to review our judgment about many things 
of obvious importance. 

The special subject which suggested these 
last remarks may serve to illustrate this; I 
mean public law. "The law of Moses^^ in- 
cluded three branches, which are clearly dis- 
tinguishable: First, "The moral law,^^ as it 
has come to be called; Second, The code for 
the government of the Jewish theocracy; and 
Third, What the critics call "the priestly 
code.^^ It is the second of these which con- 
cerns us here. It is the fashion to denounce 
it as being savagely cruel and the doom of 
the sabbath-breaker in N'umbers xv., is cited 
as establishing the truth of the charge. Let 
us look into this. 

I will not speak here of the spiritual mean- 
ing of the sabbath as a tjrpe of ^TDctter things'^ 

63 



Cbristiani3eJ) IRationalism 

to come. The creation rest was based upon 
a finished work^ and wilfully to break that rest 
was "to die without mercy/^ The great re- 
demption rest of the new creation is based 
upon the finished work of Christ, and a "sorer 
punishment^^ awaits those who slight it, or 
the work on which it is based, by turning 
to works or efforts of their own. But here I 
will deal with the Jewish law on its human side 
as a code for the government of the Jewish 
commonwealth. 

A unique characteristic of that law (I am 
not aware of any other code which contains 
it) was the distinction between ordinary 
offences and what are called presumptuous, or, 
as the Eevisers render it, "high-handed^^ acts. 
An offender was held to have acted thus when 
there was a total absence of provocation or 
temptation. And the case of the sabbath- 
breaker is cited as an instance of this. Even 
in the case of a homicide there were special 
provisions in the interests of mercy; but here 
was conduct such as cuts at the root of all 
authority and makes civil society impossible. 
The Bible has this in common with other 
books, that it demands ordinary intelligence 

64 



(Ibrt6tiam3c5 IRationalism 

on the part of the reader. And here the facts 
as stated enable ns to fill in the circumstances. 
It was not a case of thous^htlessness or ie^nor- 
ance. Sins of ignorance were fiiUv provided 
for in the code; in this respect, indeed, no 
modern code of laws is equally merciful. And 
since the world began, no one was ever driven 
by overpowering impulse to rush out to gather 
firewood. The man was a typical anarchist 
who deliberately set himself to try conclusions 
with the State. Having declared himself an 
outlaw he was treated as an outlaw. So far 
from this being a blot upon Jewish law, the 
absence of a similar provision in English 
law is a grave defect. In the judgment of 
that eminent Jurist, Sir James Fitzjames 
Stephen, if cases of this type were similarly 
dealt with in England, '^'really bad offenders 
would soon become as rare as wolves.*^* 

* Sir James Stephen's discussion of the principles which 
should govern punishment, in his Histori/ of the Criminal 
Laic of EnijJand, is impliedly a signal vindication of the 
Mosaic code : impliedly, I say, because it has no reference 
to The Bible, and the writer had no belief in the Bible. 
In the pages of the yineteenth Centiwi/ during the last 
two years I have shown how faulty our English law is 
in this very respect. 
E 

65 



Cbristlanf3e& Nationalism 



XXIV. THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT: ITS SCOPE 
AND PURPOSE. 

But, it will be said, the Sermon on the 
Mount abrogates the Mosaic law both in the 
letter and the spirit of it. So far is this from 
the truth that it gives a wholly new Banetion 
to the Mosaic law.* The objection, moreover, 
is based on a total misconception of the scope 
and aim of the Sermon on the Mount. It is 
not intended, as the objector supposes, to un- 
fold a system of government. Under such a 
code, indeed, all governent would be impossible. 
It is teaching for the guidance of the disciples; 
primarily for the time when He was with them, 
and ultimately for the era of ^^the kingdom 
of the heavens,^^ when righteousness will pre- 
vail, and divine principles of government will 
be openly enforced by divine power on earth. 

Of course, I do not expect the reader to 
believe that such a state of things will ever be 
realised. But let him not forget our compact, 
that I am to be allowed, for the sake of argu- 
ment, to assume that Christ is divine and the 
Bible true. And there is no doubt as to what 

* Matthew v. 17-19. 
66 



Cbristfanf3e& IRationalfsm 

Christ taught and the Bible says on this sub- 
ject. Most people seem to regard it as a matter 
of course that God should remain passive 
amidst the activities of evil and wrong and 
cruelty on earth. But Scripture leads us to re- 
gard such a state of things as altogether abnor- 
mal. And the infidel accepts it as proof that 
the God of the Bible is a myth. 'Not is this 
peculiar to this age, in which God is silent in 
a special sense. ^^Wherefore should the 
heathen say, Where is their God?^^ was the 
cry of the psalmist.* And again: "As with a 
sword in my bones, mine enemies reproach me ; 
while they say daily unto me, Where is thy 
God r'f "The mystery of God'' is not that He 
shall yet make His presence and power felt in 
the government of the world, but that He de- 
lays to do this. But the time is coming when 
"the mystery of God shall be finished;'' when, 
in the sublime language of the Apocalypse, 
"the sovereignty of the world shall become our 
Lord's and His Christ's, and He shall reign." 
-He rules by delegation now. For "there is 
no power but of God." The police officer and 
the criminal judge are as really "ministers of 

* Psalm xxix. 10. t Psalm xlii. 10. 

67 



CbrfstianiseO IRatfonalfsm 

God^^ as is the preacher of the gospel.* His is 
the ministry of grace^ their^s the ministry of 
law. And the two spheres are distinct. The 
principles of divine government are not abro- 
gated by the proclamation of grace in the 
gospel. The union of the two ministries in the 
same individual may give rise to difficulties; 
and even the ordinary Christian may at times 
be in doubt whether, for example, he ought 
to forgive an offender or to prosecute him. If 
the wrong done has relation to the fact of his 
being a Christian, he will probably act in 
grace. But, in all ordinary circumstances his 
course is simple; -^^the powers that be are or- 
dained of God/^ and he will hand over the 
offender to be dealt with by those powers. 

The case of the tribute money may seem to 
conflict with this principle,t but not when 
rightly understood. The question there put 
by the Jews was not the statement of an honest 
difficulty, but a mere trick, intended to bring 
the Lord into conflict with the Eoman authori- 
ties. And so He took them on their own 
ground, and left them entangled in the very 
net they sought to spread for Him. If there 

♦See Rom. xiii. 5. tHarnack, pp. 104, 105. 

68 



<Ibri5tiani3e& IRationalism 

was, indeed, the conflict they supposed between 
God and government, their question answered 
itself. "Why tempt ye Me, ye hypocrites ?^^ 
He indignantly exclaim.ed. "Eender unto 
Caesar the things that are Caesar^s, and unto 
God the things that are God^s.* 

A similar instance is supplied by the case of 
the adulteress taken in the act.f The law 
decreed her death; what was His decision? 
Would He stand by the law, or (as His enemies 
would say) throw off the mask, and take sides 
with the transgressor and against the law? 
Here again, with matchless wisdom. He refused 
the snare they laid for Him. The law. He 
declared, was right, and must be vindicated. 
But by whom was the sentence to be executed ? 
The woman should be stoned; but let him that 
was without sin among them cast the first 
stone. 

But the question will be pressed, perhaps. 
Are not the precepts of the Sermon on the 
Mount binding upon us ? Let me answer this 
b)" a test case: "Give to him that asketh 

* Matthew xxii. 16-21. The case dealt with in xvii. 24-27 
was wholly different, the tribute there being the usual 
contribution to the temple. 

tJohn viii. 
69 



Cbristiani3e& IRatfonaUsm 

thee, and from him that would borrow of 
thee turn not thou away/^* If Christians in 
London were to act thus they would soon 
gravitate to the poorhouse, and during the pro- 
cess they would be social pests. But under the 
divine law there was short shrift for ^^the 
glutton and the drunkard/^ and all who refused 
to work were left to starve. Idle tramps and 
professional beggars would be impossible under 
such a system, and the very fact of poverty 
or need would pHma facie be a claim for pity 
and help. 

The precept, therefore, must be taken in its 
proper setting. It is not a reversal of the 
Mosaic law, but a corollary upon that law ade- 
quately and justly administered. The principle 
which underlies it has, of course, its lesson for 
us, for principles are eternal. But that is not 
the question here. Many divine commands 
were given to meet temporary circumstances; 
but, being based on a principle, they have a 
lesson for us. ^^Thou shalt not mar the corners 
of thy beard,^^t for example, embodies a prin- 
ciple that is as much needed by Christians to- 

* Harnack, p. 97. 
t Leviticus xix. 27 ; cf. Jeremiah ix. 26, R. V. 

70 



Cbristfanf3C& •Katfonalism 

day as any commandment in the Decalogue. 
It was because the heathen trimmed their hair 
in this fashion in honour of their gods that 
the practice was forbidden. Though perfectly 
harmless in itself, it might become a snare to 
the Israelite and an encouragement to the 
idolater. But Christians nowadays seem to de- 
light in copying the practices of those whose 
principles they profess to abhor. 

XXV. THE LORD'S PRESENCE ON EARTH 
CALLED FOR SPECIAL PRECEPTS. 

In this connection an element claims notice 
which, obvious and important though it be, is 
too generally ignored. The presence of the 
Son of God on earth, and the character of His 
mission, affected not only the ministry of His 
disciples, but their conduct generally, and 
called for special precepts for their guidance. 
And some of these were afterwards abrogated, 
either by implication or in express terms. A 
single example of this may sufl&ce. When the 
Lord first sent out the disciples. He vetoed even 
the most ordinary provision for a journey. 
Carry neither purse nor scrip nor shoes,^^ was 



71 



<i 



Cbrfstfaniseb IRatfonalism 

His command.* But in view of His leaving 
them all this was changed. ^^When I sent you 
without purse or scrip or shoes [He asked of 
them] lacked ye anything? And they said, 
Nothing. Then said He unto them, But now, 
he that hath a purse, let him take it, and like- 
wise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let 
him sell his garment, and buy one. For [He 
added] the things [written in the Scriptures] 
concerning Me have an end.^^f 

The mention of the sword is specially signifi- 
cant. Even to us Westerns the figurativeness 
of the language is obvious, and yet Peter, 
Oriental though he was, misunderstood it and 
took it literally. Now that the Lord was about 
to leave them they were to resume the position 
of citizens. J But in a civilised community the 
citizen is not left to defend himself. That 
is the duty of the State. The sword is en- 
trusted to the constituted authorities, to be "a 
terror to evil-doers^^ and a protection to the 

*Luke X. 4. fLuke xxi. 35-37. 

t These precepts, like those of the Sermon on the 
Mount, were not for the apostles as such, but for the 
disciples generally. In Luke x. the seventy were ex- 
pressly addressed. The apostles were recommissioned 
after the resurrection. 

72 



Cbristianiset) IRatfonalfsm 

law-abiding. The Lord^s words must not be 
perverted to justify the Christianas "taking 
the law into his own hands/^ But they ought 
to satisfy even the most sensitive conscience 
that there is nothing un-Christian in appealing 
for protection to the civil power. 

XXVI. LAW AND GOSPEL EQUALLY DIVINE. 

Under Dr. Harnack^s system all this is either 
perverted or ignored. He gives a qualified ap- 
proval to the pestilent theories of Tolstoi, and 
states the opposite contention "that the gospel 
takes law and legal relations under its protec- 
tion.^^* But this alternative view is not only 
inaccurate but absurd, for law and gospel are 
equally divine. True it is that the law which 
is commonly administered in human courts 
bears about the same relation to the divine 
standard as does the gospel which is commonly 
preached in human pulpits. But this does not 
affect the principle. And here the Christianas 
duty is plain. If human law enjoins that 
which distinctly clashes with the divine, he 
disobeys, and takes the consequences. But 
short of this, he obeys, recognising that "the 

♦pp. 107, 108. 
73 



Cbrfstfani3e& IRatfonalfsm 

powers that be are ordained of God/^ ^There 
is no power but of God^^; and, therefore, the 
infliction of injustice or wrong under human 
law is not a usurpation of divine authority, 
but an abuse of it. The practical application 
of this principle is clear and simple. The 
householder, for example, will pay his ^^tribute,^^ 
even though the money be used to subsidise 
and promote the teaching and practice of 
idolatry. And this, whether the ^^Caesar'^ be 
a pagan N"ero, or a constitutional government 
in a Christian country. But if the ^^Csesar^^ re- 
quired the Christian to take part in the practice 
of idolatry, or to subject his children to the 
teaching of it, then a higher law would take 
precedence of the human law, and he would 
refuse obedience. 

XXVII. THE LORD'S MESSIANIC MISSION AND 
THE SCOPE OF THE GOSPELS. 

But to resume; for all this is, in a sense, a 
digression, albeit a necessary one. The Lord^s 
Messianic mission had a twofold character. He 
came "to confirm the promises made unto the 
fathers^^ — the covenant people; "and [the 
apostle adds] that the Gentiles [who had 

74 



Cbristfani3et) IRationalism 

neither covenant nor promises] might glorify 
God for His mercy/^^ But first, He was "a 
minister of the circumcision for the truth of 
God/^ Under Professor Harnack^s "Ptolemaic 
system^^ of exegesis this was "the husk^^ — the 
outcome of Jewish prejudice and provincial 
ignorance. t But we have learned to read the 
Bible differently. The Jew claimed a monopoly 
of divine favour, but the divine concession 
granted him was wholly different. "In com- 
merce there are two well-known systems on 
which merchants deal with the public. The 
one is to sell directly to everyone who wishes 
to become a customer; the other is to deal 
only through an agent. When the owner of 
some famous French vineyard, for instance, 
appoints an English agent, and refuses to 
supply his wine except through that agent, his 
object is to make it easier for the English 
public to obtain supplies, and to insure them 
against adulteration and fraud. And God^s 
purpose for Israel was that that favoured na- 

* Romans xv. 8, 9. 
t The historian's task of distinguishing between what 
is traditional and what is peculiar, between the kernel 
and the husk, in Jesus* message is a difficult one'* 
(Harnack, p. 55). 

75 



Cbrfstfaniset) IRatfonalism 

tion should be His agents upon earth. Jeru- 
salem was to be ^the place of His name/ ^^* 

Hence the words, ^^He came to His own/^ 
And in the first two Gospels — Matthews espe- 
cially — ^we have the record of that phase of His 
ministry. The truth of grace — the great char- 
acteristic truth of Christianity — ^will be sought 
there in vain. The very word ^%race^' cannot 
be found in them. In the third Gospel, written 
for a Gentile, that truth is foreshadowed; but 
it is not till we read the fourth that the full 
revelation of it bursts upon us. The distinctive 
doctrines of Christianity are not to be found 
in the teaching of the ^^Synoptics/^ as they are 
called. The first two Gospels, indeed, belong 
as much to the Old Testament as to the New. 
They are the winding up of the Old and the 
beginning of the New. The synoptical Gospels 
are divinely described as the records of what 
Christ ''legan to do and to teach^^; of what 
^'hegan to be spoken by the Lord.^^ And His 
voice like that of Moses and the prophets, then 
"spake on earth.^^ But to us He "speaketh 
from heaven.^^ The full revelation of Christi- 
anity has come to us from the throne of God — 

* The Bible and Modern Criticism, p. 159. 
76 



CbrfstianiseD IRationalism 

from our ascended and glorified Lord speaking 
through His inspired apostles and prophets of 
the New Testament. 

If men would but bring their intelligence to 
bear on the subject, they would see that the 
truth of this is clear on the open page of Scrip- 
ture. The Old Testament spoke, indeed, of 
^^mercy^^ for Gentiles — crumbs from the chil- 
dren's table — but this fell very far short of the 
glorious revelation of grace; grace reigning 
through righteousness unto eternal life, and 
divine love to a lost world. During the reign 
of covenant and promise grace could have no 
scope. It was not till covenants and promises 
had been broken and forfeited by the murder 
of the Son of God that grace in its fulness 
could be revealed. Even the gospel of the 
Ministry was " a gospel which in its main par- 
ticulars had yet to be fulfilled, and which could 
not be fully opened till it had been fulfilled/'* 
"I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the 
House of Israe?^ is not, as Dr. Hamack would 
tell us, ^^the husk'' of prejudice; it expresses 
the dispensational limits of the Lord's special 

* Cannon Bernard's Bampton Lectures, 1864 ; which see, 
by all means, on the question here at issue. 

77 



CbrfstianiseJ) IRationalism 

Messianic mission. "I have a baptism to be 
baptised with'^ (He exclaimed), ^^and how am I 
straitened till it is accomplished T^ Grace was 
there, for ^^grace came by Jesus Christ ;^^ but 
it was restrained — restrained until the cross of 
Calvary broke down every barrier by cancelling 
every covenant and promise that bound Him 
to the race. 

XXVIII. THE CROSS, THE GREAT CRISIS OF THE 
WORLD'S HISTORY. 

The Son of God has died by the hands of 
men. Every claim which man had upon God 
has thus been forfeited. Promises there were, 
and covenants, but Christ was to be the Ful- 
filler of them all. He laid aside His glory and 
came down to earth. At His own door He 
stood and knocked, but it was shut in His 
face.* Turning thence He wandered into the 
world — the world that He Himself had made 
— but wandered there an outcast. ^^His own 
received Him not ;^^ ^^the world knew Him not.^^ 
In return for pity He earned but scorn and 
hate. Sowing kindness with a lavish hand, 

* John i. 11. The French idiom here is nearer to the 
Greek than the English : "II est venu chez soi, et l^s 
siens ne I'ont point regu." 

78 



(Ibristfanf3e& IRationalism 

He reaped but cruelty and outrage. Come to 
give life to men^ He was seized by men and 
^^crucified and slain/^ 

With the Eationalist that death was no more 
than the martydom of the greatest of religious 
teachers. And with half Christendom it was 
but a step in God^s progressive revelation to 
mankind, and in man^s upward progress toward 
the goal of his high destiny. But with God it 
is the most stupendous of all the events of 
time, an event of which the echoes reach back 
to a past eternity,* and the results shall en- 
dure throughout an eternity to come. In truth, 
it was the supreme crisis of this world^s 
history.f 

XXIX. CHRISTIANITY IN ITS HIGHEST ASPECT IS 

A DIVINE REVELATION TO MANKIND, AND IT 

HAS A GOSPEL FOR THE INDIVIDUAL. 

I insist on this, because until it is recognised 
and accepted, the question "What is Christi- 
anity T^ cannot even be understood, much less 
discussed and answered. The Eationalists^ 
"Christianity^^ is like a theory of the solar 

* 1 Peter i. 20 ; Revelation xii. 6. 
tNuv KpCtTLS eo-Tt Tov Koa-fxov Tovrov, John xii, 31. 



79 



Cbrfstianf3e& IRatfonaltsm 

system which ignores the sun. Just as those 
who built the tombs of the prophets declared 
thereby their kinship with those who slew 
them, so if men choose to treat Christ and His 
cross as commonplaces of their religion, they 
only prove their participation in the guilt of 
Calvary. What the after world shall bring to 
those who never heard of Christ it is not given 
to us to know. But to Christendom that Cross 
is the supreme revelation of divine wrath 
against sin, and of divine love to a world of 
sinners. And this is Christianity in its first 
and highest aspect; not a religion, still less a 
philosophy, but a divine revelation of which 
the person and work of Christ are the sum and 
substance. 

And in this aspect of it Christianity has 
not merely a message for mankind, it has a 
gospel for the individual. ^^Come unto me, all 
ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will 
give you rest.^' In these words the guiltiest of 
men can hear the voice of Him who died for us, 
and who is yet to be our Judge; who knows 
all our sins and the depths of our sinfulness, 
and who, knowing all, bids us welcome in the 
full blessedness of forgiveness and peace and 

80 



Cbristianf3e& IRatfonalfsm 

joy. In this sphere the ignorance and folly 
of "the wise and prudent^^ are amazing. They 
scout the idea of present forgiveness and salva- 
tion for the believer in Christ, while they are 
still more indignant at the suggestion that the 
future will not bring salvation and forgiveness 
to all without distinction. But how can we 
know anything of God and His ways unless it 
be either from revelation or from nature ? If 
then the Bible be our guide, it is plain as 
words can make it that the sinner who accepts 
Christ is forgiven and saved, and that the 
sinner who does not accept Him is eternally 
doomed. 

But if men refuse the plain testimony of 
Holy Scripture let them turn to "Nature^^; and 
as an infidel has phased it, "Nature knows 
nothing of such foolery as forgiveness.^^ Na- 
ture is stern and pitiless in punishing. There- 
fore, as Dr. Westcott has well said, "To reason, 
the great mystery of the future is not punish- 
ment but forgiveness.^^ In view of all this the 
Eationalist^s gospel seeks merely to lure us 
into a fooFs paradise. In view of all this no 
free thinker, no real sceptic, no man of 
common sense will be misled by fine words 

F 81 



Cbristianiset) IRatfonalism 

about "the sTimmits of our inner lif e/^ or "the 
upward development of mankind^s history/^ 
If we reject the Bible, "Nature^^ will give us 
good cause to "faint in weariness and despair/^ 
If we accept the gospel, grace will teach us to 
rejoice "with joy unspeakable and full of 
glory/' 

XXX. THE TESTIMONY OF EARL CAIRNS. 

The newspapers teem with advertisements 
of remedies for ailments of every kind. And 
none are so attractive as those which record 
special cases that have been cured of the treat- 
ment. What an endless record of triumphant 
successes the gospel story of the past unfolds. 
Eight down the centuries, and in all conceiv- 
able circumstances of life, in homes of luxury 
and in scenes of want, in times of prosperity 
and ease and in dark days of trial and suffer- 
ing and agony, men — keen, strong-minded men 
delicate women, and even little children have 
proved the truth and power of the gospel of 
Christ. With how great a cloud of witnesses 
we are compassed round! One special witness 
I will cite, albeit it involves a departure 
from the scope of these pages ; one who, though 

82 



CbrfstianiscD IRationalism 

no longer with us^ has left a name that will 
not be soon forgotten — a great statesman, a 
great lawyer, a great jndge, one of the greatest 
Lord Chancellors of modern times^ I refer 
to the late Earl Cairns. Here are words ad- 
dressed by him to a company of working men, 
that included agnostics and infidels who dep- 
recated any reference to "religion^^ on the 
occasion : — 

"As I am a stranger among you, I do not know 
that I have any right to intrude my opinion. All 
I can do is to tell you how this question affects me 
personally. If I could take you to my home you 
would think it a luxurious one, and the food on my 
table is abundant. You would say, *With all this 
you ought to be a happy man.' I am indeed a happy- 
man; but I do not think my furniture and food 
have much to do with it. Every day I rise with a 
sweet consciousness that God loves me and cares 
for me. He has pardoned all my sins for Christ's 
sake, and I look forward to the future with no 
dread. His Spirit reveals to me that all this peace 
is only the beginning of joy which is to last through- 
out eternity. Suppose it were possible for some one 
to convince me that this happiness was altogether a 
delusion on my part, my home would give me little 
repose, and food would often remain upon the table 
untasted. I should wake in the morning with the 
feeling that it was scarcely worth while to get up, so 

83 



Cbristiani3e& IRationalfsm 



little would there be to live for. The sun might rise, 
or it might not, all would be dark to me. 

"You see, my friends, I could not honestly advise 
you to do what some of you say you wish to do — to 
live without God in the world — when all the time, for 
myself, my heart is crying out, 'For without Thee I 
cannot live!' It is a pleasure to me to know that the 
costly things in my house, which you cannot possibly 
share with me, are not the things out of which my 
happiness is made. Were they necessary to happiness 
I should often look round with a sigh, and wonder 
why they are given to so few. Had I to leave them 
all tomorrow, and to take to the humblest of homes, I 
should carry all my joy with me. I rejoice that in 
my own life what exceeds in value all other things 
is what I can share with you, for it is within your 
reach as well as mine. My most earnest desire and 
prayer for you is that Christ may reveal Himself to 
you, satisfying, as I know He only can, every desire 
of your hungry hearts." 

XXXI. CHRISTIANITY IN ITS SECONDARY AND 
MANWARD ASPECT. 

These words lead up to the practical side 
of this great truth. I have spoken of Christi- 
anity as being a divine revelation. In its 
secondary and manward aspect Christianity 
is the life that befits those who have received 
this revelation. Faith in Christ is not a 



84 



Cbrf5tiani3e& IRatfonalism 

psychological feat, neither is it adherence to 
a creed or cult. It is accepting a person. ^^As 
many as received Him^ to them gave He 
power to become the sons of God, even to 
them that ielieve on His name/^* And prac- 
tical Christianity is to live as ^^the sons of God, 
without rebuke, blameless, and harmless/^f It 
is thus that personal loyalty to Christ declares 
itself, and this is the only ^^Christian religion^^ 
that the New Testament recognises.^ The 
Jew had a religion in another sense, the only 
divine religion the world has ever known. It 
was designed to teach deep spiritual truths, and 
to keep the minds of men in a state of expect- 
ancy for the full revelation of those truths. It 
had "a shadow of the coming good things.^^ 
And when Christ came, those who were 
spiritual, and understood their religion aright, 
accepted Him as the realisation and fulfilment 
of it all. But with the mass, who were un- 
spiritual, and who degraded it to the level of a 
human religion, it became intensely anti-Chris- 
tian (as human religion always is), and in its 
name they rejected and crucified Him. Hence 

* John i. 12. t PWlippians ii. 15. 

t See Archbp. T. French's Synonyms {dprja-KeCa), 

85 



CbristianiseJ) IRationalism 

the prophetic denunciations which the critics 
so grotesquely misinterpret.* The Jewish altar 
was a type of Calvary; but when this, its 
spiritual significance, was ignored, it sank to 
the pagan level; the victim was but ^^a slain 
beast/^ and the whole rite was both disgusting 
and profane. 

"He is not a Jew who is one outwardly.^^ The 
true Jew was not "converted to Christ; he ac- 
cepted Christ as being the One to whose coming 
his whole religion pointed, and who was the ful- 
filment of that religion in every part of it. 
Such was the express declaration of the first 
disciples: "We have found Him of whom 
Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write.^^ 
And it was upon "Moses and the prophets^^ that 
He Himself based His Messianic claims. This 
is not theory, but fact, and plain upon the open 
page of the N'ew Testament. Christianity is 
avowedly based upon a divine revelation which 
preceded it ; and therefore if the Old Testament 
be false, Christianity is false. It assumes the 
truth of the Hebrew Scriptures which the 
critics decry and denounce. 

* See Esc. Gr. Amos, v. 21-27 ; Is. i. 11-15 ; Jer. vii. 21-23. 



86 



Cbristianiseb IRationalism 



XXXII. DR. HARNACK'S *' CHRISTIANITY " IS 

MERELY A RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY, OR 

A NEO-BUDDHISM. 

Of course it is open to the critics to use the 
Bible in the way that the cultured Jews now 
use the New Testament, as a mine from which 
they can dig out what they are pleased to re- 
gard as nuggets, and from the materials thus 
obtained to frame a system of their own. And 
this is precisely what Prof. Harnack and his 
school in Europe and America have done. He 
dilates upon the undoubted influence of Greek 
thought in the early church most true it is that 
the patristic theology was tainted by theories 
derived from rival systems of pagan philosophy. 
The old Platonic conception of the ^^transcend- 
ent^^ Deity — a God far removed from men — 
leavened the teaching of the Latin Fathers; 
while the Greek school, under the influence of 
the Neo-Platonism of which Alexandria was 
the cradle and the home, leant towards the con- 
ception of a Deity ^^immanent'^ in the world, 
and especially in humanity. With the one set 
of teachers the prominence given to the great 
truth of the atoning death of Christ relieved 

87 



Cbristiantseb IRationalism 

the gloom of a theology in which Divine love 
to a lost world was well nigh narrowed to 
favour for such as came within the church. 
And with the others the Incarnation so over- 
shadowed the Atonement that the balance of 
Divine truth was entirely lost. But in the one 
case as in the other the birth and death of 
Christ were regarded as transcendent mysteries 
of the faith. Not so, however, with the national- 
ists. With them no element of mystery, save 
such as superstition may have raised, attaches 
to either Bethlehem or Calvary. Their ^^Chris- 
tianity^^ is merely the outcome of the ministry 
of the great Eabbi of Nazareth, including ^^all 
the later products of its spirit.^^ The result is 
nothing more than a grand system of religious 
philosophy, a splendid type of Neo-Buddhism — 
Buddhism illumined by a personal God. Let 
them call it Christian Buddhism, if they will. 
But to call it Christianity is not only unin- 
telligent, but dishonest. 

Dishonest, because it is not the Christianity 
of the New Testament, and no other test or 
standard of Christianity is legitimate or even 
possible. If it be Christianity to accord the 
highest human homage to the Nazarene, to ac- 

88 
LefC. 



Cbristianiset) IRationalfsm 

cept his teaching in so far as it commends itself 
to us, and to lead pure and devout lives, then 
infidels of the type of Eenan and John Stuart 
Mill are Christians. And according to the 
present standard of faith and clerical morality, 
there is no reason why such men should not 
become ministers of Christian churches and 
professors of Christian universities. Their 
position differs from that of Harnack, 
Delitzsch, Cheyne and the rest, only in this, 
that they have the honesty to wear their true 
colours. 



89 



DEC 21 1903 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



